Well, I read 89 out of 191 pages of The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.
I'd score it, negative 4 out of 10.
A dubious honor to be among the few books I rate in the negatives.
I think he bit off more than he could chew, of something out of his area of expertise.
As well as lacking an even handed handling of religion.
Admittedly I've never written a book, been to college, or study anything studiously.
But still, everyone has opinions.
I do see where you got many of your arguments from in this debate and your other with GreatfulGoy.
The book had 'some interesting ideas, but I think jumped the gun too much, assumed too much, leaps of logic, unjustified pretentious, nearly 'every page him going on about how he considers religion an absurd harmful failure with no redeeming qualities, While Strawmanning religion near every mention of it.
Again there were 'some interesting ideas, but they get drowned by the rest of the book. (In my opinion).
Glancing online, looks like my local public library has a copy of The Moral Landscape.
WELL BEING AND HEALTH,
A body is more limited than a mind/person perhaps.
When you say keep a body healthy, I think one is specifically referring to keeping it existing in a form of function that continues the existence of a mind.
. . .
I do not think humans consider continuing existence, as the highest well being of the mind/person.
What of the well being of X value? Qualities of empathy, kindness, honor?
If a human followed an evil self serving morality, perhaps they could greatly extend their life, would this be considered good for their moral well being?
OBJECTIVITY,
Some parts of existence seem pretty objective. Geometry for instance, two parallel lines, a triangle, the degrees within a triangle.
Morality though, I'm doubtful of the Objectivity there.
Morality often seems a game of chess we've invented for ourselves, it can be understood 'within it's rules, but it is not something 'true. Aliens or AI perhaps, play checkers.
EXPERIANCE sounds a vague word.
“Dunbar loved shooting skeet because he hated every minute of it and the time passed so slowly. He had figured out that a single hour on the skeet-shooting range with people like Havermeyer and Appleby could be worth as much as eleven-times-seventeen years.
“I think you’re crazy,” was the way Clevinger had responded to Dunbar’s discovery.
“Who wants to know?” Dunbar answered.
“I mean it,” Clevinger insisted.
“Who cares?” Dunbar answered.
“I really do. I’ll even go as far as to concede that life seems longer i—“
“—is longer i—“
“—is longer—IS longer? All right, is longer if it’s filled with periods of boredom and discomfort, b—“
“Guess how fast?” Dunbar said suddenly.
“Huh?”
“They go,” Dunbar explained.
“Who?”
“Years.”
“Years?”
“Years,” said Dunbar. “Years, years, years.”
“Do you know how long a year takes when it’s going away?” Dunbar asked Clevinger. “This long.” He snapped his fingers. “A second ago you were stepping into college with your lungs full of fresh air. Today you’re an old man.”
“Old?” asked Clevinger with surprise. “What are you talking about?”
“Old.”
“I’m not old.”
“You’re inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age? A half minute before that you were stepping into high school, and an unhooked brassiere was as close as you ever hoped to get to Paradise. Only a fifth of a second before that you were a small kid with a ten-week summer vacation that lasted a hundred thousand years and still ended too soon. Zip! They go rocketing by so fast. How the hell else are you ever going to slow time down?” Dunbar was almost angry when he finished.
“Well, maybe it is true,” Clevinger conceded unwillingly in a subdued tone. Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it’s to seem long. But in that event, who wants one?”
“I do,” Dunbar told him.
“Why?” Clevinger asked.
“What else is there?”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Survival 'is a big part of being human.
I've not read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.
Hm,
"How Science Can Determine Human Values"
"Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that an "ought" cannot follow from an "is""
"Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the methods of science, because science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
I suppose science could 'record what humans on average value.
I wonder how well he challenges the ought/is
If the goal was to maximize X in humans, or said what steps humans ought value and pursue in order to maximize X. Then science could be useful, but. . . I'm doubtful that everyone agrees what a flourishing human is.
"Why do you ask?" - YN
Various reasons,
Empathy for other humans,
Nihilism can be depressing, that someone made a debate about it, I think can be a possible indicator that they're struggling with it.
Guilt,
One worries about encouraging negative thinking in others at times.
Though I don't expect my views on Nihilism strongly effect others, straws and camels, as they say.
But I am interested in truth as I see it, and how to approach existence as I see it, so I debate Nihilism now and then.
Curiosity/Greed for knowledge,
I imagine people of different cultures and countries have different points of view, I see Hindu Atheism in your profile.
Life priority Survive.
I enjoyed the debate, I found it challenging.
Are you doing alright in life?
Thanks for voting,
. . . Though a moment after posting this, I see vote was removed.
. . . Still, I appreciate you voting.
IS/COULD
SHOULD also been included, and I don't think COULD is a 'wrong way to view whether something is a boon or a bane. But COULD is a bit powerful.
I do think novelnotions could have argued IS was still applicable in terms of how they 'expected Social Media to end up in the future.
But again, I'd push against that, history is big, various variables are boons and banes at different times.
There's also IS in terms of something 'ought be a boon. Even if people are not managing to use it right, it 'is a boon, even if not to the people at that particular time.
But subjective use is still a strong argument against that I think.
AI/COPYRIGHT
I think novelnotions is right to a degree.
Social Media 'can increase sales by small business, and copyright law 'has been annoying at times.
I'm not sure how it's going to turn out though.
Arguably Social Media has allowed some companies such as Amazon or YouTube to seize big shares of the market.
(Maybe a good thing, I'm unsure. Compare it to mass manufacturing perhaps)
I'm unsure about AI and copyright, I think America has legally 'avoided addressing the topic, I'm not sure about India.
But I think 'some sort of shake up to society is happening right not. I'm not sure how it will turn out.
MISINFORMATION
Another point I'm unsure on. Feels like it has the potential to go either way.
Better communication 'can have benefits, I've seen some people use Speed Track Apps when driving, to avoid getting speeding tickets, not sure if that's good or bad.
Better, is people using social media to avoid a local disaster I suppose, mass shooter in area for instance, or perhaps a local fire spreading.
But I'm not sure Current Social media helps 'so much with those issues, one can 'hear gunshots or see smoke.
And 'really better than rumors, is official news I think. So long as one doesn't live under an oppressive lying regime.
EDUCATION
I 'do think the 'amount of information people have access to is awesome.
Though possible drawbacks exist.
ROUND 2 EXTRAS, Rough notes I might have used in Round 3
I ran out of space in Round 2, so deleted bits here and there.
This feels more of an aside anyhow.
"IRONY= Right now, you are debating with the help of a gadget. So, tell me, is it affecting your mental health as a teen or whatever? ( not trying to be rude)" -Pro
Well, I'm in my 30s, but arguably yes. The Internet and Social Media gadget 'is effecting my mental health. In good and in bad ways, I'm sure.
All the sources I have used of AI weakening our brains, Social Media making physical sloths of us, Misinformation, arguably also apply to me.
Main benefit I get from Social Media is entertainment. Sure it's fun, but I don't think it's making me physically stronger, mentally stronger, or richer.
'Probably the opposite.
Debate afterthoughts,
. . . I'm unsure whether social media is a Boon or Bane.
I 'do think there is a lot of AI Slop and Misinformation.
I 'do think it harms people's mental and physical health, also their wallets.
. . . I'm pretty fond of how entertaining it is, but arguably I could probably still find entertainment elsewhere. People still wasted their lives places before internet or television.
I 'do suspect it draws people more into 'big world politics, rather than local politics, which I see as negative.
I think people are more able to effect local politics.
Not sure about family, I don't 'have any of my family 'friended on anything online, though we all have each others Gmails.
. . .
I'm also a traditionalist,
Generally speaking I think morality is holding to the morality of one's ancestors and family that raised you.
Internet allows a divergence from what one's 'people believes, to all 'sorts of beliefs, ideas, values.
. . Heh, , course I'm also very Individualistic and hypocritical.
I 'like far ranging my reading. . . On another hand, I don't plan particularly plan on changing the laws or people of my society. Heh, so in my hypocrisy, I claim myself exception.
While I'm sure there's 'causes for my liking Tradition, I shrug. I'm a Moral Nihilist, but a Human has to Human, I like my people's traditions well enough. Habit.
I'm fond of loyalty and family, tribe.
Social Media is a Lotus, a Dream.
. . .Course on another hand, I sometimes become convinced by myself taking a side.
If I had been Pro in this debate, , , Maybe my comment here would have been different.
. . .
Thinking on Debate again,
I might not have made a good case for AI being theft.
Not that I'm saying 'I think it is or isn't.
. . . Hm, would have to read my arguments again, but I 'suspect it was a 'bit more of an assertion.
I liked your use of colors in your arguments.
<p>>Reported Vote: Neo // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/gg/voting-rubric</p>
<p>---Neo's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>You guys forget to fulfill a modal duty in your Arguments</p>
Freedom is a weird concept in a way, maybe.
I don't think highly of organized Anarchism,
As I think Tribes need means to defend against other Tribes.
And I think current humans will always form into power structures.
One needs a framework of some sort, to prevent being put under other people's frameworks.
. . .
If one wants to be free to own a gun,
Then one must 'not be free of the greater chance of suicide or being shot.
. . .
Freedom for me is a bit of a vague concept.
. . .
I suppose I like the idea of Freedom being similar to ideas of Consent.
Full Awareness of Situation and Variables, Ongoing, No Coercion.
. . .
Of course Awareness is limited, as is being Free of Coercion.
Since debate is done,
I suspect you're right, and that requiring parenting certificates for "enhanced" child benefits might be better for society.
'Maybe even parenting certificates being required for having children.
. . . But I prefer living in a highly free and individual country,
And have 'some paranoid suspicions and fears about government overreach.
People who dislike all forms of government, have a point I think, but heh, one must choose 'one of them.
. . .
And societies 'do have 'various laws and controls on the people,
It's just which laws and the degrees of such that are tricky, perhaps.
No worries, it happens.
I considered typing up another paragraph, but distracted by some home stuff,
So just stating I'm around and including a source for round 2.
What are "enhanced" child-related public benefits?
Do you have any links or examples?
I'm aware people often get money for having kids, or are able to send them to public school.
But the word "enhanced", implies something more?
Thanks for voting and the feedback.
I think I have trouble with the 'why something should be done, sometimes.
Values seem a bit arbitrary to me at times,
People either value something or they don't.
The 'implications often seem there, this change will increase freedom, this change will increase efficiency,
I often don't see the need to argue 'why someone ought value X,
I just take it as granted that 'some people value X or Y.
People will support X action if they value X,
But I have trouble saying 'why people should value X,
Because values seem arbitrary to me.
<p>>Reported Vote: Mika // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p></p>
<p>---Mika's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>con had better arguments</p>
@Death23
Thanks for the vote and the feedback.
"Reform within the existing constitutional framework like Con suggests (e.g. proportional voting, or the conspicuously absent NPVIC) can accomplish much of the same goals without the burdensome amendment process"
. .
Yeah, that did throw me in the debate, because it seems so reasonable.
Though the end result 'seems much the same to me as amending the constitution,
So once/if the process takes place in all the states, surely there could be enough support for constitution change?
"3/5ths compromise"
. .
Yeah, that was just something I flung without looking too close in hopes it would make sense.
I'd hoped I might have saved it by claiming I was using it as an example of how much counting people and states different bothers people.
"If the popular vote was determinative, then every voter’s probability would be equal."
. .
Are swing states not another name for battleground states?
I think I 'did address it when talking about the Whole and 'Americans rather than 'States,
But probably I was too indirect about it.
. . . I also kind of doubt even 'with direct voting that the candidates would appeal to the 'whole, it's still not always going to be about issues that effect 'everyone.
Gerrymandering
. .
Yeah I flailed at nothing there.
The Senate
. .
I actually don't know much about the Senate.
If the South hadn't fought or lost the Civil War, maybe State Rights would seem more important to me, and I'd think that senators and representatives ought be equal between states.
Though I'm aware Representatives have always been of different numbers (Population based).
Wallace
. .
Well,
One, I don't know much about the electoral system.
Two, much of my argument was appeal to popular ideas of Democracy and Representation. What do we value/want?
If the electoral system doesn't represent the people, it would bother some people I think.
Recount Costs
. .
Yeah I couldn't think of an argument, I hate wasting money.
. . . Though 'maybe I could have argued the amount of money involved in recounts isn't that bad. I don't have a good understanding of what various amounts of money 'mean or their importance. US debt is currently 38 trillion I think.
"weight of a feather, on recount costs"
. .
How about that.
@NobodyInParaticular
From what I remember, I watched one video and browsed Wikipedia bit for the debate.
Hour and a half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GURDCaDqswM&t=2s
Debate: Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?
After the debate I found this video a bit interesting, about 7 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
The Voting System That Actually Represents Everyone
Fairness. . .
Hm, I'm not 'quite sure what fairness is.
A pie, should it be equally separated?
Hm, but suppose one individual was lazy and another a hard worker, is it fair that the lazy worker get an equal piece?
. . . 'Maybe not, but maybe an unfairness in pie distribution is called for, by the lazy workers unfairness in not working.
. . .
If a man gives unfair treatment to a family member over a non family member, is this fair?
One would say no,
But the man might argue it is fair because 'everyone prioritizes family to some degree.
. . . But then, what about people who 'don't?
Stalin didn't prioritize his son above other Russian soldiers.
And governments are often organized 'specifically to avoid favoritism of family, and to focus on favoritism of merit.
. . .
Heh, but maybe the Nepotism guy argues Stalin was being unfair, by 'not prioritizing his son.
. . . If fairness is 50% of a pie to 1 person and 1 person,
Is it fair for 1 person to freely of their own will give their pie to the other?
. . .
I'm still not sure what fairness is?
. . . . . .
'Fate and Fairness. . .
Is it fair for a person to be hated for something they were 'forced to do?
. . . Is this the same as, 'should a person be hated for something they were forced to do?
. . . Perhaps it does not 'matter to someone if another is 'forced to be evil,
They were the 'immediate cause.
. . . Course one might argue hate the user of a tool, not the tool itself.
But arguably people are not tools, which is the Free Will theme I suppose.
. . . (Shrug) If people are all tools, then one is behaving fairly by hating, they are preforming their fate.
If people are not tools, then the person was not 'so fated, and merits a degree of blame.
. . . . . . . . .
Course some people argue against the hate for tools of fate.
And I can appreciate that to a degree.
Marcus Aurelius argues some people cannot help but be as they are, don't be angry with them.
Jesus said of a person about to be stoned, let any who is without sin cast the first stone.
I think your vote was fine.
Primarily Pro lost due to description being a bit lacking,
And Pro making little to no argument or criticisms of Con's arguments.
I didn't notice the source did not link to fairness, until I read your vote.
If 'every one of the criminals got plastic surgery and went their separate ways, 'maybe it could have worked.
Create a new individual, or steal another's identity.
Heh, maybe part of the plan 'did involve an 'apparent death.
Heh,
The idea of some Castaway Wilson Rock, given the title and job of executioner.
Personhood hasn't always meant legal rights or value though, yeah.
And in fairness, especially back then, some items such as trees could be pretty valuable, economically speaking.
Legal Personhood. . .
In 2016, Colombia recognized the Atrato River's legal personhood.
. . .
Course one can also argue there's 'degrees of Personhood, and of Legal Personhood.
The existence of animal rights for instance,
Yet no one argues for the existence of pet rock rights.
. . .
We deny legal personhood to Happy the elephant, yet some dogs have received medals, have received military rank like Sergeant Stubby.
. . . Course the 'meaning and legality is not all there.
Is a dog or a pumpkin in contests given prizes, or are their owners?
In past history some military dogs have been euthanized or abandoned, possibly even 'with military rank or medals.
. . . Some pets I assume, have 'inherited their owners estates in a way.
Assumably through trusts that care for the pets, possibly care for the pets descendants.
But that's only inherited in a 'fashion.
. . . Or instead do humans inherit the pets and estates, but with requirements and limitations?
. . . . . .
Robot Rights, I'm not so sure we'll even see pure metal and wire AI as more than rocks.
But cyborg brain organoids, maybe we would see as more.
Personhood, even legally is often not an on and off switch.
It's a spectrum.
In history even human slaves often had 'rights.
. . . . . . .
Sandra the Orangutan: Recognized as a "non-human person" by an Argentine court in 2015, granting her legal rights and improved living conditions.
India declared dolphins as non-human persons in 2013, banning their captivity due to their intelligence.
Heh, true, Wallace possibly isn't very appealing to many modern people.
I'm not sure I 'researched anything about Wallace the first round, other than noting there was a difference between his popular and electoral votes.
I do think Savant did a good job in focusing on his framework and arguing it's importance in the debate.
Ah, I see now.
Darn, though not surprising, thanks for the voting and feedback.
I'm not 'so bothered by the Wallace arguments, Doesn't seem right to me that the people's voice is not fairly represented in third party candidates.
. . . I'm also not sure it even works for the two parties some of the time. . . Perhaps they often get members and even leaders in their parties who do not believe, espouse, or legislate their values.
Might muddy what the parties effectiveness and what they even 'mean, I'd imagine.
Framework I probably could have done better on, but it didn't feel all that important (Though arguably it is in debates).
Whatever motivates people in caring about something, whether it can work or not, is often more broad than narrow.
Working best as guidelines, unless they're specifically in the description of the debate, and a key question.
. . . Dropped points, I think professional debaters would agree with Savant,
Though personally I still dislike that particular part of some debates.
I don't think Savant gish galloped, but theoretically if someone did, it's hard to address 'all an opponents points.
Not addressing them means they just stand on their own merits (In my view)
Doesn't mean I accede to them.
Sometimes someone (Not Savant) makes a dumb argument, or one of little relevance, doesn't seem worth the time to address such.
Even 'without gish gallop, many debates one could probably sum up a list on either side of dropped arguments.
I made my argument, they made theirs, should be enough for third party to judge.
It's annoying sometimes (Not this debate) the idea of having to come back to an argument again and again, just because the opponent keeps changing it slightly.
My biggest fault in the debate I'd say, was that I 'did have trouble nailing down what Con’s specifically advocating for.
What Proportional Elector Allocation exactly was, examples of it. . .
Even in the final round, it didn't click with me that it would not have voting districts within the state, until I read your vote.
Which wrecks my claims that it can be gerrymanded.
@NoOneInParticular
I thought Lincoln 'did win the popular vote?
I think I would have voted Kohai in this debate with just a 'bit more by him.
While I don't remember if he ever agreed to Hyper's view of the debate, of just needing 1/3.
I thought Kohai did well on the environment and animals.
I don't even think Kohai did anything all that 'wrong with the AI,
Just needed a bit more.
Could have addressed the AI sources and claims.
Or perhaps given examples of times in the past we have 'considered legally recognizing, but then decided not to legally recognize something that does not yet exist.
What should be?
And who holds?
The Burden of Proof in a debate on what existence is?
When one argues for Atheism being true?
Or when one argues for a God Theism being true?
I actually thought debate was kind of interesting.
Briefly, the Christian's assumption of the incarnation of God in a human being, logically means that exists only one real Christian, the so called "child of God"- Jesus.
Christians are followers 'of Christ.
Same way for Zenoists following Zeno, or Confusanists following Confucius.
Though I suppose in a sense, all these people might be the most (Themself)ists, in a sense.
. . .
Defining God is often difficult in debate,
I'm not sure something needs to be transcendent to be considered God,
Nor that some things we partially experience, to not be considered God.
Lot of definitions and views on God.
Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism
Might have been better as,
Pantheism demonstrates atheism.
But maybe you also should have defined Pantheism, God, Atheism in the description.
Maybe also title would have been better if title was,
Pantheism (If true) demonstrates atheism.
Eh, I've never studied, looked, or thought much about the Electoral College.
I've no strong views or data of it.
Not I,
While I think I will debate the subject again to refresh my knowledge and see if I still do not believe,
I did that recently enough on DART.
I see value of Game Theory and Culture in Christianity.
I think it can be reasonable for people to believe in it, but not myself.
I do not think I end up in a significantly better position by believing again, though others might.
I don't view Christianity or Theism as bad, and rather think it can be harmful to undermine other's belief in it.
